was this a game, or was it real life? was the boy stealing because he knew he would live if he did? could this happpen in real life? was everybody who died in the same area? was the boy not there because he was stealing

was this a game, or was it real life? In the fictional setting it was real life.was the boy stealing because he knew he would live if he did? No.could this happpen in real life? Yes.was everybody who died in the same area? Yes.was the boy not there because he was stealing No.

Was the boy the cause of their deaths? If so, directly or indirectly? Does it matter from what or whom he was stealing? Is any person besides the family relevant? Did his family die instantly? Did they see their deaths coming? Did the boy?

Do we need to know the composition of the family? Do we need to know more about the family?

Was the boy the cause of their deaths? No. If so, directly or indirectly? FA. Does it matter from what or whom he was stealing? No. Is any person besides the family relevant? No. Did his family die instantly? No. Did they see their deaths coming? Before they actually died? Yes. Did the boy? Before they actually died? Yes.

Do we need to know the composition of the family? Do we need to know more about the family? Not really, but some details may help to get the picture.

Would it be more accurate to say that their food was poisoned? Did the boy steal other food that was not poisoned? Did his theiving activities indirectly allow him to avoid the poisoned food? Or was theft directly involved? Do we need to know the story behind how and why they were poisoned? Or just that they were poisoned?

Would it be more accurate to say that their food was poisoned? No.Did the boy steal other food that was not poisoned? No.Did his theiving activities indirectly allow him to avoid the poisoned food? Yesish. Or was theft directly involved? No.Do we need to know the story behind how and why they were poisoned? Yes. Or just that they were poisoned?

Is the title relevant? Not really.Is honesty exhibited by the family only that they were not also thieves? Yesish.Is the danger just that they were poisoned? Yes. Or was there other danger? No.

Was the food poisonous, like poison mushrooms? Or was the poison separate? Could the food normally be eaten with no problem? If separate, was this naturally occuring poison something that would be transferred to the food after it was toxic (anthrax?)? Or did the poison form on the food? Is the poison organic like anthrax? Or inorganic like arsenic?

Does the story involve tolerance to poison? In other words did the thief eat the same thing as everybody else but was unaffected due to his tolerance of it (arsenic works this way, right)? Or does the story involve toxic build-up, such that people who ingest poison over a period of time will eventually reach a toxic threshold (mercury?)?

If the thief did not eat the same thing, did he eat something different that he had stolen? Or the opposite, did he steal food that happened to be poisonous and provide it to the family?

Stepping back -- was it food that he had stolen?

Everybody died due to the action of one person, right? Was it the child? A parent? One of his siblings? Someone outside the family? Was the action related to the delivery of the food or poison?

Did the child not eat?

Possible solution: The child was caught shoplifting, sent to bed without dinner, while the rest of the family dined on food that turned out to be poisoned.

Was the food poisonous, Yes. like poison mushrooms? Exactly that. Or was the poison separate? No. Could the food normally be eaten with no problem? No. If separate, was this naturally occuring poison something that would be transferred to the food after it was toxic (anthrax?)? Or did the poison form on the food? Is the poison organic like anthrax? So, this. Or inorganic like arsenic?

Does the story involve tolerance to poison? No. In other words did the thief eat the same thing as everybody else but was unaffected due to his tolerance of it (arsenic works this way, right)? No. Or does the story involve toxic build-up, such that people who ingest poison over a period of time will eventually reach a toxic threshold (mercury?)? No.

If the thief did not eat the same thing, did he eat something different that he had stolen? No. Or the opposite, did he steal food that happened to be poisonous and provide it to the family? No.

Stepping back -- was it food that he had stolen? Irrelevant.

Everybody died due to the action of one person, right? Yes. Was it the child? A parent? One of his siblings? Someone in the family. Someone outside the family? Was the action related to the delivery of the food or poison? Yes.

Did the child not eat? Yes.

Possible solution: The child was caught shoplifting, sent to bed without dinner, while the rest of the family dined on food that turned out to be poisoned. EXACTLY. You have it.

The story is set in rural France, I'm not sure about the time but probably the early 20th century. A boy has stolen something (the story doesn't tell what - probably one of the usual things for little boys to steal) and is sent to bed without dinner. The dinner contains mushrooms some family member has collected this day - unfortunately, some of the "mushrooms" are in fact death caps. The doctors can do nothing to save the lives of the family, as the story plays before the discovery of penicilline and silibinin as remedies for the poisoning. Only the boy who didn't eat anything survived. In the story he later becomes a fraudster and explains this with an early lesson about the fruits of honesty...

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.